Richard Seymour on WEEI now

[satz]

A great line coveredup alot of our Issues with LB.By moving seymour we asked our LB to stepup. They did not .

IN 83 Yd run VINCE gets moved and Guyton instead of coming through the B gap and Jamming the gaurd so vince is not moved was No were.
just was late.

Green Now has the responsiblity to cover the HOLE and Banta setting the edge.Green was 3 feet fromthe LOS and rice was gone.

End of the quaterthey ran every down to keep the pats from getting the ball.worked . green is just a lighter,faster end asking him to hold the LOS was bad.

Against the dolphins we had to move vince to play long ...why do you think that happened.

If 1yr is no big deal trade vince too ,brady 1 yr and mankins i am sure will get a 1st too.

 

[Deus Irae]

If 1yr is no big deal trade vince too ,brady 1 yr and mankins i am sure will get a 1st too.

This is a part that the defenders of the trade ignore, and it's an oversight on their part that borders on criminal. Brady's in the final year of his deal, it's time to move him. Watson and Mankins should have been traded prior to the season.

 

[emoney_33]

This is a part that the defenders of the trade ignore, and it's an oversight on their part that borders on criminal. Brady's in the final year of his deal, it's time to move him. Watson and Mankins should have been traded prior to the season.

Seymour had NO CHANCE to be re-signed or stick around. No one is offering a first for Watson. Brady is staying and Mankins is probably staying. Wilfork is at least getting franchised. Get a grip. "criminal" lol

 

[upstater1]

Seymour had NO CHANCE to be re-signed or stick around. No one is offering a first for Watson. Brady is staying and Mankins is probably staying. Wilfork is at least getting franchised. Get a grip. "criminal" lol

You're exactly right. The previous post was totally illogical.

No one is saying you MUST trade players in the last year of their deal.

Trading a guy for a first when he's in the last year AND there's little chance of signing him is a good idea.

So there have to be three criteria:

1. You get a first rounder
2. He's in the last year of his deal
3. There's little chance of resigning him

 

[eagle eye]

Richard Seymour, Raiders DL on WEEI

Excellent, thank you very much. Very good interview, Sey came across really well there. Really missed the guy this year, that no.1 pick better work out.

 

[emoney_33]

I'd disagree - I do think there is something to momentum, confidence & rhythm in the game. I know its a chicken & egg kind of conversation as you mention. But even after the Ravens put up that TD, the Pats did drive back down for a FG attempt. If they had gotten off the field on that 3rd & 7 play (pass to Mason), it would've been a 24-17 game in the 4th quarter. I like our chances at that point.

It would have been 27-14, not 24-17. Still a 2 score game going in the 4th quarter with only ONE WR and still passing situations. That final TD was the final nail in otherwise already solidly nailed coffin.

They ran on 13 out of 16 first downs, converted 10 out of 16 third downs, carried for 234 yards on 52 rushes, and had almost as many points (33) as they did passing yards (34). If that's not domination, I'm not sure what is.

Yea sure if we look at in a vacuum without context the 3rd down numbers look horrendous. The 52 rushes is once again indicative of the OFFENSE and the situation because apart from the 83 yard TD, there were 51 rushes for 2.96 YPC.

Let's break down the 3rd downs you claim as domination...

1st Quarter
------------
3rd & 4 on NE 11 - 5 yards left tackle for a 1st down
3rd & 11 - stopped, PUNT
3rd & 1 on NE 16 - QB Sneak for 1 yard, 1st down
3rd & 9 on NE 9 - stopped, FG

2nd Quarter
------------
3rd & 1 - 1 yard run, left side... next play INTERCEPTED
3rd & 13 - stopped, PUNT
3rd & 2 - 3 yards, right side (Warren)
3rd & 2 - 3 yards, left side
---- END OF HALF ----


First half ends 24-7, Seymour's absence may have been felt on 2 of the 3rd down conversions. The first one would still end up in a FG, the 2nd one the next play was an INT anyway. So 4 point swing assuming Seymour doesn't give up that 3rd & 4 run. 20-7 Ravens.

3rd Quarter
------------
3rd & 2 - stopped, PUNT
3rd & 6 on NE 7 - stopped, FG
3rd & 2 - Pass to Mason, 8 yards, 1st down

4th Quarter
------------
3rd & 7, 17 yard pass to Clayton, 1st down
3rd & 7, Flacco scramble
3rd & 3, 3 yards Mcgahee (left tackle) TD

--- Garbage Time basically with a gassed defense ----
3rd & 7, 16 yards (left takcle) Rice
3rd & 10, stopped, PUNT

In the second half, after an absolute pitiful 3 plays per drive 1st half from the offense, the defense comes out solid with 2 3rd down stops, one for a PUNT, one (another gift from the offense) stopped for a FG. Seymour's absence not felt there. Flacco comes alive for the game-killing drive, passing for 2 3rd down conversions and scrambling for another. Even if Seymour stops the 3rd & 3 run from McGahee and they kick a fg it's 27-14 in the 4th quarter with an anemic offense.

Any way you want to slice it, there is no Ravens domination of our defense. There is the offense gift wrapping the game for the Ravens. It's unfair to expect a perfect game from the defense especially in those horrendous conditions. They gave the offense MORE than enough opportunities, but the offense simply lacked options aside from Moss. They couldn't run as much as they wanted to help the passing game because of the early 24-0 deficit that they were primarily responsible for.

Seymour himself wouldn't have had to have stopped it. When you don't have a liability on your line, and instead you have Seymour, that's one less blocker that the Ravens have at their disposal since you have to double Seymour and Wilfork. Put Seymour on that line, and Wilfork is likely in better position to make that tackle, and if not him, then Mayo or Thomas. Saying that Seymour wouldn't have made a difference on that play because it wasn't run directly at where he would have been is a pretty simplistic interpretation of how the Pats' (or any) defense works. Line play dictates everyone else's positioning and assignments.

It's a big assumption that you believe a play designed to run up the middle would have doubled Seymour rather than Wilfork. It's quite possible that play doesn't happen, but it's not a sure thing. Seymour has been part of big botched plays like that in the past, he's not immune to that.

If that play gets stuffed (as it probably would have been), there's a very good chance that you're looking at a short possession and the Pats getting the ball back with decent field position. That lessens the need to answer with a quick strike, makes the threat of the Pats establishing the run more viable, and, even if Brady does get strip-sacked again, it makes the following touchdown less probable and less deflating if it does happen.

There is no reason to believe it "probably" would have been stuffed with Seymour there. It was a well blocked play and bad execution from the Patriots ILB and Safety. Seymour is actually unlikely to have effected the OL blocking scheme on that play and unlikely to have been able to get inside to stop the play.

 

[emoney_33]

RE: 83 yard TD run

I just want to point out that Jarvis beat his man, but Wilfork got double teamed and pushed into his lane, Rice cut it up the middle and that run had nothing to do with Jarvis playing instead of Seymour. Watch it again, Seymour isn't changing that play one bit.

 

[SunnyDenmark]

Yes, we miss Richard. He was a good - very good player (depends on the year). But he is only ONE player on a one year contract. We didn't win any Lombardis with him from 2005, 2006, 2007 AND with also Asante, Harrison, Vrabel and Bruschis at or just after their primes. The window with those players had closed this year and Bill knew it. Better to sell the stock while it is still high (especially when you have inside info on the company like Belichick has) then to wait until it is obvious that the stock is heading down fast. Bill got a likely high first round pick in 2011 with a 5-6 year contract and hopefully with a rookie salary cap. That is what is called a maturing bond which is coming 'due ' in 2011 and with only waiting 2 years to cash it in is a pretty high rate of return. [KEEP] one year rental + 3rd round comp pick VS. [SELL] high first rounder for 5-6 year contract.

Bill knew this defense (age and ability) was on the decline so he cleaned house. Thats why this team let go of alot of our favorite players. It was a re-building year and Bill knew it. Pats were unlikely to win it anymore with the older guys. So get alot of new young guys in and give them playing time to evaluate talent and give them game experience (which they would not get nearly as much with many of the old expensive vets around).

We fans got drunk with success and forgot how damn difficult it is to win a Lombardi. There are many good teams every year that don't win it. All you need it one bad game in 3-4 playoff games and you go home empty handed tasting bitter defeat. This 2009 team couldn't hold a jockstrap to the 2007 team and we didn't win it that year either. It also takes abit of luck as well.

It was time to start fresh and re-build and to Bills credit , he kept enough of the team to keep us competitive, win another AFC crown and take us to the playoffs. Not too bad for a total makovever of defense. Pats were still a few pieces short which has been well documented on this website (Rush LB, 3rd WR, etc.)

We miss Sey, but to think that he could singlehandlidly save the Ravens game when the Pats offense gives the ball away 4x on its own side of the field is ludacrist. Turnovers lose games, not one -just past his prime- defensive end. This 2009 team had zero margin of error and with the Welker injury plus the turnovers - made the chance of a win against a good playoff team highly unlikely.

Get realistic people. It was a good year with lots of 'thrills and spills' but we know deep down inside it was not a super bowl calibre team. Now the defense is younger, faster, more athletic, and more capible of running with the fast, pass happy game being played by many teams. The 'kids' got a valuable year under their belts and Bill got a year to see what they can do. Now he can evaluate and separate the trash from the treasure. Also a new DC on the way in, 4 high round picks in April and things are looking brighter for next year.

 

[RobertWeathers]

It would have been 27-14, not 24-17. Still a 2 score game going in the 4th quarter with only ONE WR and still passing situations. That final TD was the final nail in otherwise already solidly nailed coffin.



Yea sure if we look at in a vacuum without context the 3rd down numbers look horrendous. The 52 rushes is once again indicative of the OFFENSE and the situation because apart from the 83 yard TD, there were 51 rushes for 2.96 YPC.

Let's break down the 3rd downs you claim as domination...

1st Quarter
------------
3rd & 4 on NE 11 - 5 yards left tackle for a 1st down
3rd & 11 - stopped, PUNT
3rd & 1 on NE 16 - QB Sneak for 1 yard, 1st down
3rd & 9 on NE 9 - stopped, FG

2nd Quarter
------------
3rd & 1 - 1 yard run, left side... next play INTERCEPTED
3rd & 13 - stopped, PUNT
3rd & 2 - 3 yards, right side (Warren)
3rd & 2 - 3 yards, left side
---- END OF HALF ----


First half ends 24-7, Seymour's absence may have been felt on 2 of the 3rd down conversions. The first one would still end up in a FG, the 2nd one the next play was an INT anyway. So 4 point swing assuming Seymour doesn't give up that 3rd & 4 run. 20-7 Ravens.

3rd Quarter
------------
3rd & 2 - stopped, PUNT
3rd & 6 on NE 7 - stopped, FG
3rd & 2 - Pass to Mason, 8 yards, 1st down

4th Quarter
------------
3rd & 7, 17 yard pass to Clayton, 1st down
3rd & 7, Flacco scramble
3rd & 3, 3 yards Mcgahee (left tackle) TD

--- Garbage Time basically with a gassed defense ----
3rd & 7, 16 yards (left takcle) Rice
3rd & 10, stopped, PUNT

In the second half, after an absolute pitiful 3 plays per drive 1st half from the offense, the defense comes out solid with 2 3rd down stops, one for a PUNT, one (another gift from the offense) stopped for a FG. Seymour's absence not felt there. Flacco comes alive for the game-killing drive, passing for 2 3rd down conversions and scrambling for another. Even if Seymour stops the 3rd & 3 run from McGahee and they kick a fg it's 27-14 in the 4th quarter with an anemic offense.

Any way you want to slice it, there is no Ravens domination of our defense. There is the offense gift wrapping the game for the Ravens. It's unfair to expect a perfect game from the defense especially in those horrendous conditions. They gave the offense MORE than enough opportunities, but the offense simply lacked options aside from Moss. They couldn't run as much as they wanted to help the passing game because of the early 24-0 deficit that they were primarily responsible for.




It's a big assumption that you believe a play designed to run up the middle would have doubled Seymour rather than Wilfork. It's quite possible that play doesn't happen, but it's not a sure thing. Seymour has been part of big botched plays like that in the past, he's not immune to that.



There is no reason to believe it "probably" would have been stuffed with Seymour there. It was a well blocked play and bad execution from the Patriots ILB and Safety. Seymour is actually unlikely to have effected the OL blocking scheme on that play and unlikely to have been able to get inside to stop the play.

IMO the game ran very similar to Pats @ Broncos 2006. Denver had 4 drives start inside the Pats 30. I believe that they only one drive that went over 40 yards....

 

[SanAngeloState]

I think he comes back on a 1 year prove it type deal. He wants to win and now realizes what he gave up here.

BB moves to more of a 1 gap, which suits him fine, stocks up in the draft and we win big next year.

Seymour wants another ring!

 

[emoney_33]

I think he comes back on a 1 year prove it type deal. He wants to win and now realizes what he gave up here.

BB moves to more of a 1 gap, which suits him fine, stocks up in the draft and we win big next year.

Seymour wants another ring!

Yea I'm pretty sure none of that is going to happen.

 

[Deus Irae]

...Trading a guy for a first when he's in the last year AND there's little chance of signing him is a good idea.

So there have to be three criteria:

1. You get a first rounder
2. He's in the last year of his deal
3. There's little chance of resigning him

Always fun when you can just make up "criteria" out of whole cloth and pretend it's essential. Unfortunately, the franchise tag kills your argument, but that's irrelevant for precisely that reason, right?

 

[emoney_33]

Always fun when you can just make up "criteria" out of whole cloth and pretend it's essential. Unfortunately, the franchise tag kills your argument, but that's irrelevant, right?

The team didn't want to franchise tag him... yet they shouldn't trade him because YOU wanted to tag him?

Let me introduce you to Vince Wilfork, the KEY to the patriots D-Line. If you reject a 1st round pick for Seymour under the assumption that you will tag him, then you essentially lose all grounds with Wilfork as well as the ability to tag him. So since the franchise tag is needed POTENTIALLY for Wilfork, your true stud on the DL that you can't really afford to lose, you DON'T keep a guy whose only chance to stick with the team is wasting that franchise tag.

This really is so simple, are you Seymour's cousin or something?

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

I think he comes back on a 1 year prove it type deal. He wants to win and now realizes what he gave up here.

BB moves to more of a 1 gap, which suits him fine, stocks up in the draft and we win big next year.

Seymour wants another ring!

If BB wanted him here, he wouldn't have traded him when the cap savings was only like $3M or something. I think it's clear the intentions of this season, to completely rebuild the defense. Bring Seymour back would just be a step backwards in that plan.

 

[eagle eye]

The 83 yard TD was up the gut, Seymour isn't stopping it.

Richard Seymour is not stopping the offense from giving the Ravens the ball on the 17, 9, 25 and 22. The offense averaged under 4 plays per drive, with 3 turnovers in the first half.

Richard Seymour is NOT changing the outcome of the Ravens game. That game is 100% on the offense, and it just showed the fatal flaw of the 2009 Patriots. The fatal flaw was WR depth, either Moss or Welker go down and the offense instantly sputters.

Your homerism is just to much to take week in week out.

On the bit I quoted, Seymour makes a huge difference to that play and I'll tell you why, they don't double team Wilfork because they have to worry about Seymour too.

 

[emoney_33]

Your homerism is just to much to take week in week out. I mean really, just sit back, take a breath and have a look back through your posts.

First of all how is it "homerism" to diss one half of the team and defend the other half? Oh right it's not but it's one of those little keywords you can throw around rather than arguing actual points and facts.

You actually argue points and take a totally different side when it suits you. I can give examples if you want but it would be better if you realised it yourself.

You can't give even one example.

On the bit I quoted, Seymour makes a huge difference to that play and I'll tell you why, they don't double team Wilfork because they have to worry about Seymour too.

That's completely and 100% absurd. They absolutely double Wilfork as the play was designed to go up the gut and you don't double the outside on a play up the middle. It doesn't matter what you want to believe, but the fact of the matter is that play is going for a TD no matter who you have in Jarvis Green's spot. Go watch it again, need a link?

 

[farn]

That's completely and 100% absurd.

I love your intensity. You go guy.

 

[emoney_33]

Your homerism is just to much to take week in week out.

On the bit I quoted, Seymour makes a huge difference to that play and I'll tell you why, they don't double team Wilfork because they have to worry about Seymour too.

edited? I guess you can't really give me examples then huh

 

[eagle eye]

edited? I guess you can't really give me examples then huh

Yeah I edited before you posted because I just couldn't be bothered getting into it with somebody who posts so much.

I prefer quality to quantity. You have quality in you but you are not using it.

 

[emoney_33]

Yeah I edited before you posted because I just couldn't be bothered getting into it with somebody who posts so much.

I prefer quality to quantity. You have quality in you but you are not using it.

I've been posting a lot lately sure, but I'll go back to lurking here shortly as the absurdity drives me insane.

Don't make excuses though, I have not contradicted myself and you knew you couldn't find something that doesn't exist. That is why you removed that callout. I don't have any problems with you, but if you want to call me out like that next time please be prepared with the evidence.